The Whole Story

[surreptitious57]

How could two words have ALL the answers

The Universe is but two words yet it has all the answers
As there is absolutely no where else they can come from

[PeteJ]

Contrary to what you say, I have NEVER asked the question. AND, since I ALREADY KNOW what the answer to the question is, I would, as explained, NEVER ask the question.

I'm sorry Age, but I cannot grasp your style of communication. You seem to be having an argument with someone for no reason and it doesn't seem to be me.

[Age]

How could two words have ALL the answers

The Universe is but two words yet it has all the answers

You are right in that the words 'the' and 'Universe' are two words, but if as you claim " 'it' has all the answers", then what can be clearly seen is 'it' is, literally, just one word.

Although what you were alluding to may well be absolutely true and correct. That is: The Universe has ALL the answers. Now, How do these two words have ALL the answers?

As there is absolutely no where else they can come from

Okay. This is OBVIOUS that answers can NOT come from somewhere else other than The Universe, as The Universe, literally, means ALL-THERE-IS. So, literally, the answers are within, or come from, ALL-THERE-IS, or The Universe, as there OBVIOUSLY is absolutely no where, nor nothing, else.

[Age]

Contrary to what you say, I have NEVER asked the question. AND, since I ALREADY KNOW what the answer to the question is, I would, as explained, NEVER ask the question.

I'm sorry Age, but I cannot grasp your style of communication.

The actual reason for why 'you' cannot grasp 'my' style of communication will become clear, soon enough.

You seem to be having an argument with someone for no reason and it doesn't seem to be me.

I am JUST 'clearing up' the wrong and incorrect things YOU said, and said about me. Are you not yet FULLY aware of what you actually said?

You said; "So you've already asked the question and answered it."

This is completely and utterly WRONG and INCORRECT. So, I cleared this up by saying; 'I have NEVER asked the question'. (Although I ALREADY KNOW what the answer is to that question, which YOU asked.

You also said; "It [already having answered the question] doesn't mean the question shouldn't be asked."

I just explained, to you, that 'since I ALREADY KNOW what the answer is to that question', then there is NO actual need for me to ask that question. Therefore, this means that the question should NOT be asked by me. Which is contrary to what you actually said, as evidenced above.

[Age]

Contrary to what you say, I have NEVER asked the question. AND, since I ALREADY KNOW what the answer to the question is, I would, as explained, NEVER ask the question.

I'm sorry Age, but I cannot grasp your style of communication. You seem to be having an argument with someone for no reason and it doesn't seem to be me.

You are 'trying to' argue that;
If someone has a global theory, then they can explain why all selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable.

Is this correct?

If this is correct, and if I have understood you correctly from your clarifying answers, then I am arguing with you for A reason.

That reason being I CAN explain to you WHY ALL the current selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable, in the days of when this is being written.

What I am 'arguing' with you about mostly is although I do NOT have a, so called, "global theory", because I do NOT do 'theories', I, however instead, have an explanation of Everything as a whole, or an explanation of what the Universe actually IS and how this Universe actually works. That is if anyone is Truly interested in that explanation.

See, there is actually a set of selective conclusions about the, so called, "world" as a whole, which can be agreed upon AND accepted.

You claimed that:
If someone can explain why all selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable, then you will take them seriously.

I have just been SEEING if you are actually being serious or not. In order to do this I just needed to understand more in regards to what you were actually talking about FIRST, so I asked you some clarifying questions. I did this BEFORE I could, properly and correctly, inform you that I can explain to you why all the selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable.

This is what has actually been taking place, well from my perspective anyway.

[Advocate]

I missed the bit about non-dualism. Did y'all even read it?

The Whole Story is compatibalist and it explains why and how the ordinary understandings of dualism, non-dualism, and compatibalism go wrong. I know it's badly formatted atm, but that's why i'm here, to clear it up, not to refute things it's already explained fully. It cannot be less explanatory than non-dualism because it utterly subsumes non-dualism.

This (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/) is the foundation of both ontology/metaphysics and epistemology, which are the foundations of everything else, and clears all those dualist questions easily, that being the point.

[PeteJ]

You are 'trying to' argue that;
If someone has a global theory, then they can explain why all selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable.

Is this correct?

Spot on.

If this is correct, and if I have understood you correctly from your clarifying answers, then I am arguing with you for A reason.

That reason being I CAN explain to you WHY ALL the current selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable, in the days of when this is being written.

That's fine. So you agree that a fundamental theory must explain this. Feel free to do so,

What I am 'arguing' with you about mostly is although I do NOT have a, so called, "global theory", because I do NOT do 'theories', I, however instead, have an explanation of Everything as a whole, or an explanation of what the Universe actually IS and how this Universe actually works. That is if anyone is Truly interested in that explanation.

Okay. You have an explanatory theory. If it's not global then there's work still to be done. If it's global it will resolve all the problems of philosophy.

See, there is actually a set of selective conclusions about the, so called, "world" as a whole, which can be agreed upon AND accepted.

An examples would be interesting.

[Age]

I missed the bit about non-dualism. Did y'all even read it?

The Whole Story is compatibalist and it explains why and how the ordinary understandings of dualism, non-dualism, and compatibalism go wrong. I know it's badly formatted atm, but that's why i'm here, to clear it up, not to refute things it's already explained fully. It cannot be less explanatory than non-dualism because it utterly subsumes non-dualism.

This (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/) is the foundation of both ontology/metaphysics and epistemology, which are the foundations of everything else, and clears all those dualist questions easily, that being the point.

Your link is so badly formatted that I would not even know where to begin to start to clear it up. I have absolutely NO idea what relates to what in that link.

Would you like to clear this up, somewhat?

[Age]

You are 'trying to' argue that;
If someone has a global theory, then they can explain why all selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable.

Is this correct?

Spot on.

If this is correct, and if I have understood you correctly from your clarifying answers, then I am arguing with you for A reason.

That reason being I CAN explain to you WHY ALL the current selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable, in the days of when this is being written.

That's fine. So you agree that a fundamental theory must explain this. Feel free to do so,

But I do NOT agree with this. I really wish you would STOP making 'assumptions' in regards to 'me'.

The reason I do NOT agree with what you said is because 'theories', essentially, are only an assumption or a guess about what COULD BE true, right, and correct.

I much prefer to just look at and discuss what IS only actually True, Right, and Correct, instead.

What I am 'arguing' with you about mostly is although I do NOT have a, so called, "global theory", because I do NOT do 'theories', I, however instead, have an explanation of Everything as a whole, or an explanation of what the Universe actually IS and how this Universe actually works. That is if anyone is Truly interested in that explanation.

Okay. You have an explanatory theory.

You have previously written that you cannot grasp my style of communication. This is partly do to the fact that you are NOT comprehending what I am actually communicating to you. I just got through explaining to you that I do NOT have any theories, and had just got through explaining to you the very reason WHY, yet you straight away ASSUMED, and then tell me, that I have an "explanatory 'theory' ".

When I say; I do NOT do 'theories', then this means that I have NO 'theories'.

Do you comprehend this?

ONCE AGAIN, you are completely and utterly TOTALLY WRONG. Contrary to what you say, I do NOT have an 'explanatory theory'. This is because I have NO 'theories' - Okay?

If it's not global then there's work still to be done. If it's global it will resolve all the problems of philosophy.

I was NOT referring to the 'global' part. I was referring to the 'theory' part. As EVIDENCED and PROVEN above.

What I have, to explain, is, literally, thee resolution to ALL problems. By definition, what I have is NOT any theory at all. What I have is NOT a theory of Everything, but rather an explanation of Everything.

Now, if you can NOT differentiate between the two by now, then you REALLY cannot grasp my style of communication.

By the way, my explanation is NOT 'global' because 'global' only refers to something as minuscule and as small as the earth. My explanation is universal because it is in relation to Everything - The Universe, Itself.

See, there is actually a set of selective conclusions about the, so called, "world" as a whole, which can be agreed upon AND accepted.

An examples would be interesting.

Creation AND evolution play equal parts in Life. There is NO "one or the other" here. Every thing is created AND every thing evolves.

Nature AND nurture play equal parts in Life. There is NO "one or the other" here. Human beings are made up of two parts; The thinking part, which is affected by nurture AND the physical part, which is effected by nature.

Free will AND determinism play equal parts in Life. There is NO "one or the other" here. Every person is free to choose whatever they like but the choices, which they have to choose from, are limited AND determined by previous factors.

[Advocate]

I missed the bit about non-dualism. Did y'all even read it?

The Whole Story is compatibalist and it explains why and how the ordinary understandings of dualism, non-dualism, and compatibalism go wrong. I know it's badly formatted atm, but that's why i'm here, to clear it up, not to refute things it's already explained fully. It cannot be less explanatory than non-dualism because it utterly subsumes non-dualism.

This (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... y_X2Kbneo/) is the foundation of both ontology/metaphysics and epistemology, which are the foundations of everything else, and clears all those dualist questions easily, that being the point.

Your link is so badly formatted that I would not even know where to begin to start to clear it up. I have absolutely NO idea what relates to what in that link.

Would you like to clear this up, somewhat?

The link you're responding to here is as well formatted as it can be, it's a bloody spreadsheet. If you're referencing the original, that's the point of this post. Your response to my post asking for help clearing it up comes to "Would you like to clear this up?" Well, derp.

<insert less snarky response here (shut up, it's 6 in the morning)> I'm working on it, but that doesn't resolve the issue that apparently none of the most prevalent responders here have actually engaged with the document in question in a meaningful way. Questions of dualism are metaphysical and that, being the starting point, is what the entire metaphysical section is about. The link above expands without expounding on that central concept. It's a long, well-curated list of various dualities which revolve around the same point of distinction, between the material and the metaphorical.

[Advocate]

>The reason I do NOT agree with what you said is because 'theories', essentially, are only an assumption or a guess about what COULD BE true, right, and correct.

>I much prefer to just look at and discuss what IS only actually True, Right, and Correct, instead.

There are two distinct definitions of theory and the scientific one, the one most philosophers use, means that which Best explains the available evidence. If you want to conflate it with "guess", please realize, that's why we have different words. A theory is an evidenced guess. How well-evidenced is a different question.

Moreover, you cannot look at only what is actually true, etc. without starting with theory in order to get to Know what's true, etc. This is the same problem as "justified true belief". The justification is a pointer to the truth. You can't know truth without justification - there is no truth that stands alone. You're putting the cart before the horse. If you want to talk about only what is true, you have to talk about the evidence that supports that truth.

The Whole Story is all about what is true by logical necessity and useful by pragmatic application. If you want something more than that, it's going to have to start with a Theory of why The Whole Story is insufficient, and that theory is going to have to be backed by evidence that can be refuted. My starting point is that TWS is complete and perfect (other than presentation issues). A contention that i'm wrong is a naked contention, what's the evidence that supports it?

>When I say; I do NOT do 'theories', then this means that I have NO 'theories'.

Bullshit. Your theory (contention supported by evidence but not yet tested to completion) is that the common understanding of theories is insufficiently certain to be epistemologically relevant.

>Creation AND evolution play equal parts in Life. There is NO "one or the other" here. Every thing is created AND every thing evolves.

Those words don't make sense in that order.

>Nature AND nurture play equal parts in Life. There is NO "one or the other" here. Human beings are made up of two parts; The thinking part, which is affected by nurture AND the physical part, which is effected by nature.

Equal my ass. Nature comes first and sets the limits for what it's possible for nurture to accomplish. Nurture is always subject to the constraints of nurture, but the opposite can only occur with technology.

>Free will AND determinism play equal parts in Life. There is NO "one or the other" here. Every person is free to choose whatever they like but the choices, which they have to choose from, are limited AND determined by previous factors.

Bullshit again. Free will isn't even potentially a real thing, just off the top. Using the term to mean the Experience of freedom has some purchase but there's no possibility of them being equal, or anything remotely close. Determinism is real. Freedom is an illusion. Free will is an experience of freedom, not freedom in some sense that can be verified by logic or empirical measurement - there is no such freedom.

[Advocate]

See, there is actually a set of selective conclusions about the, so called, "world" as a whole, which can be agreed upon AND accepted.

An examples would be interesting.
[/quote]

This whole goddamned post is About an example!

[PeteJ]

But I do NOT agree with this. I really wish you would STOP making 'assumptions' in regards to 'me'.

Okay. Clearly I have no idea what you're talking about.

[PeteJ]

See, there is actually a set of selective conclusions about the, so called, "world" as a whole, which can be agreed upon AND accepted.

An examples would be interesting.

This whole goddamned post is About an example!

Really? I cannot see one. You could help by giving one. I'm not aware there is one.
.

[Nick_A]

I can't see how a ToE is possible without a skeleton of our universe begining with the source outside of time and space. Levels of reality or hierarchies of intention comprise the body of God within the source. In short, you cannot have a grasp of wholeness by debating its parts. Rather than beginning with inductive reason a seeker of truth seeks the skeleton which makes deductive reason from the whole into the parts possible

It is normal to consider the purpose of our universe by results oriented inductive reason. But what if the purpose of our universe isn't found in the results of the interactions of laws but in the process itself? Purpose is in the process.

Consider our bodies as mini universes. What does the body do? It transforms substances. Objectively it is what our senses do. subjectively we live by results but objectively our bodies transform substances through our bodily processes.

IMO it is the same with the universe or the body of God. It is a living machine which transforms substances for the needs of our Source or the ONE described by Plotinus.

The universe isn't here to serve us. Rather life exists to serve the great living machine in the many ways it was designed to do. Man is unique since it can serve the universe as a mechanical necessity or as a conscious being; a higher quality of being Man has the potential to awaken to and evolve towards..